People v. Daniels
| Decision Date | 27 November 1979 |
| Citation | 422 N.Y.S.2d 832,102 Misc.2d 540 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York v. William DANIELS, Defendant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Defendant, Willaim Daniels, charged with robbery in the second degree (2 counts), petit larceny and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree seeks to introduce into evidence at trial, the favorable results of his polygraph test.
On December 28, 1978, a delicatessen located at 350 S. Columbus Avenue, Mount Vernon, New York was allegedly "held up." Two youths entered, displayed a firearm, demanded and took money from the operator of the establishment, Lucille Spaulding.
After viewing a number of photographs at police headquarters in Mount Vernon, she identified the defendant as one of the perpetrators. A warrant for his arrest was issued. Mr. Daniels was arrested for the alleged crime on January 29, 1979, and thereafter was indicted by a grand jury of Westchester County for the offenses charged. He pleaded not guilty on the arraignment and has steadfastly denied any participation in the alleged crime.
On April 26, 1979 at the request of defense counsel, a practicing polygrapher, Mr. Victor Kaufman administered a polygraph test to Mr. Daniels. Mr. Kaufman issued a written report and found that the defendant's denials of presence and participation in the December 28, 1978 incident were not deceptive as indicated by his responses. As an expert in polygraphy Mr. Kaufman concluded that defendant was truthful.
Shortly thereafter, defense counsel made the results of the examination known to the Westchester County District Attorney's Office. She offered that defendant be examined by a polygraphist of the people's choosing and that they simultaneously stipulate to the admissibility of such finding in evidence. The District Attorney's Office responded in the negative. They did not wish to administer a polygraph test nor stipulate to the admissibility of such finding in evidence.
Prior to trial, defendant by his counsel, moved by order to show cause and requested an order directing a hearing be held prior to trial to determine whether the polygraph results should be admitted into evidence in light of the fact that the polygraph had probative and scientific value and that this case hinged on a single eye witness identification of defendant.
The court granted the hearing and defendant called expert witnesses to establish the reliability of the polygraph, its technique and its wide acceptance.
A meaningful analysis of the polygraph must begin with the technique employed therein.
Essentially, the theory underlying the polygraph is that an individual's autonomic nervous system continues to function in a normal fashion where he or she is being truthful. On the other hand the necessity to conceal either through outlandish lies or less than full disclosure will result in stress responses or changes which are observed and monitored by the instrument. 1 U. S. v. Wilson, D.C., 361 F.Supp. 510, 512 (1973). The instrument records the physiological fluctuations that are demonstrated while aided by three basic components: (1) The pneumograph gauges the respiration rate (2) the cardiosphygmograph measures the blood pressure and pulse rate and (3) the galvanometer which monitors the galvanic skin responses. Recently, a new device has been incorporated in the instrument that measures unobservable muscular activity and assesses the attempts to control the other responses that are chartered by the polygraph. U. S. v. Alexander, 8 Cir., 526 F.2d 161, 163 (1975).
The polygraph test is administered by an examiner qualified in polygraphy. He interviews the subject privately and throughout the test no one is admitted in the room other than the examiner and the subject. A pre-test interview is conducted lasting approximately one hour or more. The test itself takes but a few minutes and normally consists of a few questions. 2 The examiner uses three types of questions for the examination. The irrelevant question where little or no stress is recorded in the response. The control question where an investigation of past activities necessarily renders greater reaction, and questions directly relevant to the matter in issue. 3 Zinn v. Bernic Constr., Inc., Sup., 416 N.Y.S.2d 725, 726-727 (1979).
The different changes in respiration rate, blood pressure, pulse rate and skin resistance elicited from the responses to the questions are simultaneously monitored by the components and are transmitted and recorded by pen onto a piece of paper commonly referred to as polygraph and/or chart. 4
The chart is then interpreted by the examiner. After an evaluation of the subject's behavior, but giving prime importance to the chart, he arrives at an opinion. 5
The threshold question to be determined in the first instance is what standard to apply before polygraph results may be properly introduced into evidence.
the first appellate case that considered the question to admit polygraph evidence was Frye v. U. S. in 1923. 6 There the Court was asked to overturn a murder conviction on the ground that the trial court had erred in refusing to admit into evidence the exculpatory results of a lie-detector device that measured only changes in the systolic blood pressure. The instrument was crude and primitive but was the forerunner of today's polygraph. In adhering to the trial court decision the Frye case essentially underscored that the device as such, had not been generally accepted in the particular field it belonged. More specifically, the machine and its technique had not gained the acceptance and scientific recognition among psychological and physiological authorities. In addition, it had not passed from the experimental to the demonstrable stage. 7 It did not, however, delineate the scientific field it belonged nor whether the instrument and its technique were acceptable therein.
The standard enunciated in Frye was subsequently followed in a number of jurisdictions and in both Federal and State decisions. 8 Recently, a number of cases, though still clinging to the Frye standard have admitted the evidence upon stipulation and others upon carefully worded exceptions. 9
In New York, the first appellate review of the polygraph arose in People v. Forte. 10 The defendant in a murder trial, after the close of the evidence, moved to reopen so that he could be examined under a pathomer, "lie-detector." The court affirmed the trial court's exclusion upon the ground that no evidence had been shown that properly qualified the instrument for general scientific recognition. In fact, the defendant therein did not properly lay the foundation necessary to establish the instrument and the sufficient reliability of its technique. 11
In 1969 in People v. Leone, 12 the Court of Appeals followed the basic criterion of Forte but gave considerable weight to the qualifications of the polygrapher as being the central issue therein. The court relied primarily on the inexperience of the examiner in upholding the exclusion of polygraph evidence. Walther v. O'Connell, 72 Misc.2d 316, 318, 339 N.Y.S.2d 386, 388 (1972).
More recently, New York courts have admitted polygraph evidence upon stipulation and in other specific cases where the issue to be decided was of primary importance and the aid of the polygraph highly probative. 13
In line with the increasing judicial acceptability of the polygraph some have argued that general scientific acceptance is a proper avenue for the court to take judicial notice of a scientific fact but not the appropriate criterion for testing and admitting scientific evidence, and more specifically polygraph evidence. 14
To require general acceptance would in essence mandate absolute infallibility. Instead, a court should weigh and consider the admissibility of polygraph results in the same manner it makes other decisions relating to admissibility of any evidence. If the evidence has substantial probative value and is relevant to the issue and does not endanger defendant's rights, or prejudice the jury, nor mislead the proper administration of justice, then it should be admitted as any other evidence. 15
Evidence is relevant if it aids in making the existence of a fact while arriving at a conclusion more or less probable than without such evidence. 16 Polygraph evidence in particular is highly probative and relevant in that it is useful in assessing the subject's credibility to the ultimate issues of the case. 17
Since the evidence sought to be admitted is essentially opinion evidence, the issue is whether an expert may testify, present charts and explain his conclusion as to whether the subject was telling the truth or lying to pertinent questions. 18
The admissibility of evidence in any case rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, U. S. v. Marshall, 9 Cir., 526 F.2d 1349, 1360 (1975), cert. den. in 426 U.S. 923, 96 S.Ct. 2631, 49 L.Ed.2d 376; U. S. v. DeBetham, D.C., 348 F.Supp. 1377 (1972), affd. 9 Cir., 470 F.2d 1367, cert. den. in 412 U.S. 907, 93 S.Ct. 2299, 36 L.Ed.2d 972; U. S. v. Penick, 7 Cir., 496 F.2d 1105, 1110 (1974), cert. den. in 419 U.S. 897, 95 S.Ct. 177, 42 L.Ed.2d 141 and may not be overturned upon review unless it is manifestly erroneous and an abuse of discretion. U. S. v. Oliver, 8 Cir., 525 F.2d 731, 737 (1975), cert. den. in 424 U.S. 973, 96 S.Ct. 1477, 47 L.Ed.2d 743; U. S. v. Bursten, 7 Cir., 560 F.2d 779, 785 (1977). Under traditional standards the proffering party must lay an adequate foundation for the testimony, U. S. v. Lanza, D.C., 356 F.Supp. 27, 30 (1973); U. S. v. Wainwright, 10 Cir., 413 F.2d 796, 803 (1969), cert. den. in 396...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wynn v. State, 7 Div. 946
...procedure and the qualifications of the examiner. See State v. Dorsey, 88 N.M. 184, 539 P.2d 204 (1974); People v. Daniels, 102 Misc.2d 540, 422 N.Y.S.2d 832, 837 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1979).3 See, e.g., Cureton, A Consensus as to the Validity of Polygraph Procedures, 22 Tenn.L.Rev. 728, 729 (1953) (......
-
People v. Shedrick
...of law. Defendant's fourth contention is that the trial court erred in refusing to conduct a Daniels hearing. In People v. Daniels, 102 Misc.2d 540, 422 N.Y.S.2d 832, the court ordered a hearing pursuant to defendant's request to determine the reliability of a polygraph examination. Followi......
-
Meyer, Matter of
...the parties agreed that the following submitted facts would be proved if a "Daniels hearing" had been held. (See People v. Daniels, 102 Misc.2d 540, 422 N.Y.S.2d 832). The respondent and two others who were accused by the children of participating in their abuse were administered polygraph ......
-
People v. Frank
...the court in Clayton hearings (People v. Vernon, 89 Misc.2d 472, 476, 391 N.Y.S.2d 959), and for other purposes (People v. Daniels, 102 Misc.2d 540, 553-556, 422 N.Y.S.2d 832). One who is a target of a matter under investigation by a Grand Jury who elects to testify before it in his own def......